Evolution is under attack on several fronts:
1.The continuing lack of evidence for macro-evolution - the gradual changing of species into other species over a very long period of time (typically millions of years).
2.Recent discoveries that species in the same evolutionary 'pathways' may have completely different gene sequences.
3.The realization that micro-evolution, i.e. mutations within organisms, usually do not produce positive 'evolutionary' progress, but rather tend towards degeneration of a species (one of the reasons that many species become extinct). Even positive mutations of this type have been shown not to lead to macro-evolution.
4.The realisation that there has been inadequate time for complex evolution, leading to life we see on Earth, to occur within the accepted current life-time of the Universe.
5.Continuing lack of evidence that 'chemical' evolution of life has occurred.
6.Growing evidence that, when properly interpreted, the Bible does not contradict a scientific interpretation of the natural world.
7.The continuing inability of evolution to explain human thought and self-awareness/consciousness.
8.The limits of Science to explain the unexplained.
Let's look some of these problems in more detail.

The lack of evidence for Macro-evolution

Macro-evolution describes the process by which one species changes into another, e.g. 'ape-man' to 'man'. However evolutionists are divided on how such changes come about, but they agree that this must be what happens. Traditionally, evolutionists assume that random mutations in organisms take place over a very long period of time (typically millions of years) gradually producing new and different types of organism. Logically, this would also produce many transitional forms - in fact, we would expect to find far more intermediate or transitional forms in the fossil record than the 'final' forms. However, there are virtually no transitional forms to be found at all. Some argue that this is because the fossil record is incomplete and that only a small percentage of fossil remains have been found. If that is the case, then it is strange that transitional species, of which there should be far more, are generally completely missing.

In the early 1980s evolutionists such as Hutchings advanced the view that evolution of species comes about through 'large' or 'macro' steps directly from one organism to another.
That does get around the problem of transitional forms in the fossil record, but many evolutionary scientists, including Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins, received such views skeptically. His book, The Blind Watchmaker, is a rebuttal of this approach and a strong defence of Darwinism. However, the evidence for 'transitional' forms, as required by Darwinism, is still severely lacking-at best-in the fossil record, and the evidence for the mechanism for macro-evolution is still not evident.

Dawkins argues that the lack of transitional forms can be explained by geographical and 'fossil gap' means; the main difficulty here is that the gaps seem to appear wherever there should be transitional forms! To get round this, Dawkins claims that an 'extra rich' fossil record would be required to find transitional forms. But surely such forms should be more numerous than any other kind of fossil, and therefore easier to find?

We should not erudite arguments cloud the fact that evolutionists believe that since evolution must be true, there must be an explanation for these anomalies. But surely that is faith, not science-isn't it? Very recently, Neil Broom, an Associate Professor at the University of Auckland, published a book in response to Dawkins' work entitled How Blind Is The Watchmaker Broom strongly rebuts the thesis that life is the product of blind chance.

Genetic evidence

Darwinian evolution suggests that visual similarities in life forms are evidence that species which look alike have developed from each other along the same evolutionary pathways. That seems logical, but recent work on gene structures is showing that similar-looking species may have completely different gene structures.
An example is the cichild (fish) species found in lakes in East Africa. Cichilds from one lake have completely different mitochondrial DNA sequences from those in another and cannot therefore have evolved along the same pathway. Further, some cichlid species in the same lake are genetically different from each other.
Evolutionists explain this by saying that these cichild species must have evolved independently several times. But such 'repeated' evolution is not consistent with natural selection, which Dawkins discusses other examples of 'repeated' evolution and concludes that although the chance of such 'repeats' is virtually nil, it 'must' have happened.
For another example consider 'Neanderthal Man'. Geneticists have found mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthal remains has not made any genetic contribution to modern humans; humans and neanderthals are therefore not related life forms, and humans cannot have evolved from neanderthals.
Ongoing genetic research continues to discover evidence that is throwing some serious spanners in the evolutionary works. This evidence must be seriously considered.

Micro-evolution

This describes the process by which variations can occur in species. I t does happen, and is in fact the basis by which selective breeding is possible. But although micro-evolution can produce variations within a species (poodles, alsatians and dalmatians in the dog species for example), for it to be the engine for the development of life, there would need to be evidence that it can produce new species. There isn't. On the contrary, it is being conclusively proved that most mutations within a life form are harmful and do not lead to 'further' evolution but rather towards extinction of species.
Further a, number of ancient life forms present on the Earth today have clearly not evolved any further for millions of years; the best example of this is blue-green algae. It is the most ancient of fossils, and yet is still around. It does not seem to have changed for at least 3 billion years! If micro-evolution does produce new species it has had more than enough time in the case of blue-green algae, but there appears to be no evidence for anything of the sort.
Several other examples could be cited, including the coelecanth-a fish still found in the sea and in the fossil record, which has clearly not evolved over millions of years and is regarded by scientists as a 'living fossil'. The lungfish is another.

The universe life-time and chemical evolution

Evolutionists assume that life began with a single, simple cell. It has been calculated that if the simplest living cell was assembled from its constituent atoms under completely ideal conditions the odds that the cell would assemble would be one chance in 10 with one hundred billion noughts after it!
The age of the universe is around 17 billion years or 5X10, with 'just' seventeen noughts after it, seconds.
In perfect conditions-and assuming that attempts were made to assemble the cell once every microsecond for the entire age of the Universe-the number of chances to form the cell would be ten with 84 noughts after it. Compared with the chance of cell assembly given above, this number is almost infinitely too small to give any chance of success at cell assembly. The realistic odds are much worse.
It is therefore simply impossible to conceive of spontaneous cell formation by any natural process. Despite much research chemical evolution does not provide any realistic answers to the origin of life.

Evolution and the human mind

Perhaps the biggest challenge for evolution concerns the origin of the human mind. It has absolutely no conceivable explanation for the self-conscious human mind. No animals have the self-awareness of human beings the ability to 'know that they know'; the ability to seek truth for its own sake; moral sense and the appreciation of beauty. These things show the enormous gap between human minds and those of animals-a gap that evolution cannot explain. This topic has recently been discussed at length by philosopher Anthony O'Hear, who concludes that evolutionary theory will never be able to explain these things.

Summary

The attitude of evolutionists is-and has always been-'Evolution must be true and therefore scientific facts must be interpreted in the light of evolution.' This sounds very much like a religious statement of faith! It is certainly not the scientific method. As we have seen, a number of vital scientific facts cannot be interpreted this way. Further the Biblical account of creation, does, when interpreted in the light of scientific facts, give a credible alternative explanation of the natural universe and of earth's natural history. A cause for concern is that while evolutionists follow their faith in evolution, some are often very intolerant of those who hold, by faith, a belief in the biblical account (Romans 1:18-23 - a description of evolution?). As we have seen, given ongoing scientific research and current facts, the biblical account should, at the very least, be given equal status with evolution. Heartening recent developments suggest that a number of people in the scientific community are starting to realise this. Further, Christians have no reason to apologise for the 'non-scientific' nature of Genesis 1 account. When properly interpreted it is consonant with scientific facts and provides further proof of the existence of God.

Biblical/scientific harmonisation of the origin of the universe and the geological record.(Accepting that 'day' means an undefined period of time. With this point in mind the interpretation of the Genesis account becomes incredibly straightforward to harmonise the geological record with the account.
NOTE:
Genesis 1 only gives an outline of the order in which God created the physical universe and life on Earth; this order is the same as that determined independently by science. So how did the writer of Genesis know that this was the right order?

SCIENCEBig Bang formation of the universe.

Subsequent evolution of the physical universe over billions of years. For its first era the universe was in darkness.
Formation of galaxies solar system. Ignition of our sun. Earth starts to rotate.

GENESISVerse 1:'In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.'

Verse 2: '...the Earth was formless and empty and darkness was over the surface of the deep.'Verse 3-4: 'And God said "let there be light"... and he separated the light from the darkness..."

END OF "DAY" ONE

Presence of water on the earth, including seas, water vapor, Initial atmosphere formed.

Verse 3-4: ' And God said: "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water..."

END OF "DAY" TWO

Development of the earth's crust.Beginning of the crystal cycle. Appearance of 'blue-green' algae

Algae start to put oxygen into the air.
Beginning of photosynthesis.
Appearance of plants.

Verse 14-19: '...let there be lights in
the expanse of the sky...'Verse 16-18: 'God (had) made two
great lights...' (These verses in the
historic tense - sun and moon already formed earlier. Clearing of atmosphere
allowed them to be seen clearly).

END OF "DAY" FOUR

A multitude of marine and freshwater
life (Cambian 'explosion' of life).

First flying creatures above the
Earth (insects/birds).

Verse 20:'...let the water teem with
living creatures...' (Hebrew means 'water' not just seas.)

Verse 24-25: '...let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals...'(Hebrew words refer to three classes of land mammals only - designed to co-exist with man.)

Verse 26-27: '...let us make man in our image...'Verse 28-31: 'So God created man...male and female...'

END OF "DAY" SIX

No more newly created species found to date............................

GEN 2:1-3: 'God had finished the work...so he rested...'(God's work of physical creating had finished.)

DAY SEVEN CONTINUES

NOTES:
The 'days' referred to are the general order of creation eras; these eras , of necessity overlap. Each era began with 'and God said', setting that creation era in motion.
Dinosaurs are included under the Reptile/Amphibian classification.
There are other creation summaries in the Bible (psalm 104; Genesis 2; Proverbs 8:22-31; John 1:1-5; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 11:3)
There is no indication of the mechanism by which God created, but the facts point to instantaneous creation not evolution.
The Genesis account is not intended to be a scientific treatise, but rather a summary.
God gave us minds and brains and expects us to use them to discover the details. (Proverbs 2:1-5, 25:2 and other scriptures).
Only the Biblical account gives the origin of the human mind.